One of the greatest abilities a person can have is the ability to spot out-points.
To be able to imagine the ideal scene and to then “see” departures from that ideal is a very valuable ability. This is a paraphrase of some ideas from L. Ron Hubbard and I agree with them.
Couldn’t you also say that spotting out-points was also “critical“? Such as “I don’t like all the regging going on in the church”.
The Church of Scientology likes to discourage it’s members from being critical. While on Solo Nots I was greatly discouraged from communicating out-points I saw within the church. I do believe that I had bypassed charge (painful emotion) connected to the out-points that I was observing. I was not able to communicate this painful emotion in my auditing at Flag (Mecca of technical imperfection) because any origination of mine that pointed out an out-point was turned against me and became a fact that I must have some sins (“overts” they call them) and missed withholds (someone almost found out about a sin). So instead of getting my own therapy (called auditing) I got wrong “indications” that further irritated me and drove me down the tone scale.
Scientology processing is supposed to bring you up the tone scale. Scientology auditing when misapplied can push you down the tone scale and that is what is ruthlessly done by the church. This is so much the case that the theetie wheetie (sweetness and light, nothing ever wrong) types can skate right through their auditing and are actually created by the church. You see the church doesn’t want anyone with skills of observing out-points so they start to punish them when they do start pointing out out-points concerned with them. The radical church of Scientology doesn’t mind if you spot out-points about your friends or society even though this is to some degree punished. But just try to be critical about the church and see where that gets you.
I once wrote a KR on dm for being critical of George Bush and Bill Clinton (two separate occasions) at International events. I understood that per policy the “church” was not supposed to be political. So dm’s “critical” comments about standing US Presidents, (even if true) (If you used their logic then dm must have overts on Bill Clinton and George Bush, which in this case is probably true.) was probably not a good idea.
I ended up getting interrogated in my sessions to see if I had “sins” against dm. For those reading this that may not understand this kind of “tech” I will explain it a bit. In essence the idea is that if you criticize something then you have sins or crimes or misdeeds against the thing you are critical about. The “logical” conclusion to this is that if you have communicated all of your “sins, misdeeds” and taken responsibility for them then you would not be critical about anything. You would be in harmony with the universe and be a full OT (spiritual being who can leap tall buildings at a single bound).
There may be some validity to this theory. I don’t believe it to be an absolute.
The church pushes this kind of think so hard that I think it contributes to people losing their ability to think critically and see what is wrong with things and then be able to correct them. If you are not willing to be critical and to voice your observations, you will never be able to correct anything in life and will become a failure.
If you are still in/participating with the church I suggest that you sit down and write up all the things that you think are wrong with the organization. Then write up all the good things you can observe.
If you can’t think of anything try this; Decide for yourself what the best group of people would be like? Would they want to become more able and spiritual? Would they be able to communicate freely about anything?
Would they be free to think and analyze data?
Would they be free to discuss opposing ideas?
Would a person in good shape be able to confront other ideas that didn’t agree with his own?
Or would they be better off listening to the leader to tell them how to think?
Would they rather have someone else decide for them what is wrong with society?
Would they like the leader of their group to inhibit their free ability to communicate?
Would they think there are some people that they could not confront?
Would they feel that there were some ideas that would have a devastating effect on them and therefore decide they should not communicate?
Would an they be able to confront someone who was against their group? Would they be able to have a rational discussion with someone else who had different ideas or would it be better to avoid others with different ideas?
Would it be good for a group to pressure it’s members to give large amounts of their money to create an Ideal building?
Would it be okay with a person in good shape if their friends had observed things within the group to be improved that they be able to discuss these things openly?
There can be two extremes. A person who can “see” nothing is wrong with anything and the person who can “see” only the bad and nothing good.
To be able to do a great job of analyzing and improving you would have to also be able to spot the “plus points” or good things going on and strengthen them. Try to handle the bad and improve the good.
As an example there are some things good about the RCS. They deliver some courses that have some good information. They deliver auditing which helps people sometimes, etc. There are some good things about dm. He has nice hair. He is despicable as a person but he is also charismatic at events.
Try making a list of good and bad things in your own life and strengthen the good and eliminate the bad and improve your ability to spot the “bad” things and don’t be worried about your sins. You are basically good and when you want to disclose things that you don’t feel good about, find a good friend that you can trust and unburden yourself, because carrying around baggage that might make you feel shame is an out-point too and should be handled when it is real to you and you feel ready